Three cousins – Russian tsar, German kaiser, and British king exchanged pleasant letters while their subjects slaughtered each other on WWI battlefields. Shabak maintained Arafat’s accounts in Israel during the Intifada. It should come as no surprise that Netanyahu enjoys talking to Abbas while Palestinian terrorists keep murdering Jews.

The talks ending in nothing: Israel and the Arabs undertook to prepare a framework peace agreement within the next few months. Which cannot happen because Netanyahu cannot sell to Israelis withdrawal from the Temple Mount and dismantling dozens of Jewish villages, and Abbas cannot accept anything less or forfeit the right of return.

This is exactly the policy Netanyahu criticized when Olmert was prime minister: a secretive clique negotiating away core Jewish land while voters are fed lies.

Obama, the EU’s leaders, and Netanyahu are all pushing Abbas for direct talks. It is unlikely that all of them are stupid and do not realize the futility of talks without preconditions.

Perhaps they need a good PR victory with the Arabs before attacking Iran.

Abbas very reasonably wants preconditions. He asks whether the Jews are willing to abandon the Temple Mount, the Muslim Quarter of the Old City, East Jerusalem, and most of the settlements. Unless the Israeli government makes up its mind on these questions, talks with Abbas are senseless.

Abbas can hardly expect Netanyahu to be more generous than Olmert, so his condition amounts to refusing the talks.

It is interesting to see a minuscule Arab leader whose people fully depend on the US for their livelihood rejecting Obama’s overtures—something that his Jewish counterparts are afraid to do.

Meaning that even in the best-case scenario, two years from now there would be merely a plan and no peace treaty. In practice, there will be neither a plan nor a treaty. Both Israeli and Palestinian governments will be unable to swallow the final-status concessions.

Which would be good. The world public opinion is sympathetic to national groups fighting states, but mostly indifferent to states fighting each other. Israel-Palestinian issues will fade from the front pages, and we will be free to conduct de facto territorial annexations.

Israeli peace professionals of Peres’ ilk object to this simple scenario because it would not allow them to demolish settlements and abandon the Temple Mount.

The only point of contention is that Olmert, in a last attempt to preserve a modicum of self-respect, agreed to abandon the Temple Mount to an international consortium in which Muslims would have three votes (Palestine, Jordan, Saudi Arabia), Christians one vote (the United States), and Jews one. The arrangement would have assured Muslims of de facto sovereignty but, being more honest than Olmert, they demanded de jure sovereignty.

Obama’s concern over dead terrorist-supporters was expressed on the US Memorial Day, when Americans celebrate their own heroes, including those who killed terrorists and their civilian supporters.

Obama’s reaction was apparently severe enough to warrant the cancellation of his much-touted meeting with Netanyahu.

The UNSC assembled for an emergency session. The routine deaths of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq drew no similar concern from the world powers.

Now the problem is, the incident may become to Netanyahu in this term what the Hebron market-shooting was during his first term. At that time, an Israeli soldier opened fire on Arab civilians, with scores of TV cameras conveniently ready nearby. Immediately thereafter, Netanyahu abandoned his staunch refusal to cede the ancient Jewish capital to the Muslims, and transferred Hebron to the PA’s jurisdiction.

The Gaza flotilla incident may turn out to be similar. Sending a few dozen Marines to take over a ship carrying 750 peaceniks—whose violent intent could not have escaped Israeli intelligence services— ensured a gunfight. After the peaceniks attacked the very first Marine who boarded their ship, the Navy did not change its tactics immediately, but continued to send inadequately armed Jews into the fight. It all smacks of a provocation by Israel’s leftist establishment, designed to ensnare Netanyahu. Admiral Eli Marom, who scarcely avoided discharge not long ago, would find it hard to resist the establishment’s pressure to stage such an incident.

Abbas’ fellow terrorist Mashaal is also eager to join the peace talks. He called Israel, ‘an obstacle to peace.’ And he is right—dismantling Israel is the only way to achieve lasting peace between Jews and Arabs.

Netanyahu promised Mitchell that he would dismantle still more roadblocks, transfer authority in more towns to Fatah thugs, and release large numbers of terrorists arrested by teenage Jewish soldiers at great risk to themselves. These must be the strangest negotiations in history, with the stronger side giving way continually and the weaker Palestinians offering no concessions whatsoever.

Obama has staked too much on Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Having been defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq, he seeks victory against the Jews. The State Department has threatened reprisals against whichever party breaks the talks by staging provocations. Daily terror attempts, evidenced by the continual arrests of Fatah terrorists, are not a provocation, of course.

Israel’s relationship with the United States is the worst it has ever been. And it seems increasingly that Netanyahu has given in to Obama not only on the Palestinians, but also on Iran. After every meeting with Obama, Bibi looks shell-shocked, and Iran’s nuclearization will devastate him completely, making him open to any concessions to the Arabs.

In Israel, police battled haredi demonstrators who were protesting the relocation of graves in Ashkelon to make room for the underground facility of Barzilai Hospital. The facility only makes sense if the government expects Grad rockets from Gaza three years from now.

And what for? The Palestinians refused an offer by Ehud Barak which included the Temple Mount, the Muslim and Christian quarters of the Old City, and the return of 100,000 refugees. They rebuffed again a similar offer by Ehud Olmert, which provided for somewhat fewer refugees. Is it so hard to understand that they want Tel Aviv?

Even the Rabin-Peres government refused to discuss Jerusalem, and even Olmert refused to discuss the refugees beyond a token number.

There is really nothing to discuss with the Arabs about Jerusalem: they want it all, including the Temple Mount. At most, Jews will continue wailing at the Western Wall as we did in the Middle Ages. The Temple Mount is negotiable for atheistic Jews, but not for good Muslims.

Netanyahu’s decision to discuss the refugees’ right-of-return will be fateful. No Palestinian leader can give up on his people’s right of return. As the return will remain the last stumbling block in the peace talks, the Israeli government will come under tremendous pressure to admit the refugees. Many voices will claim that a few hundred thousand Arabs won’t change Israel’s demographics— ignoring the fact that those are the worst Arab criminals and terrorists, fourth-generation welfare recipients, brainwashed with Jew-hatred. If Israel agrees to discuss the refugees, she would likely admit them.

The repeat visit means that Netanyahu passed through Mitchell some alternative offers to Hussein and Mahmoud. The offers must have been important—Dan Shapiro, Obama’s shadow rep behind Mitchell, extended his stay in Israel for a week.

So far, Israel has been unable to satisfy Obama’s demands, which echo the most radical demands of Syria and the PLO. Obama insists that Israel abandon Jerusalem (including the Temple Mount and most settlements), cut her territory in half by allowing a Palestinian corridor from Gaza to the West Bank, and allow many refugees back into Israel.

But Abbas has already refused both renewed negotiations with Israel and Netanyahu’s cunning offer of a Palestinian state within temporary borders—which, of course, would have become permanent.

The only question remaining is, why do we send tax transfers to a government which refuses even to conduct peace negotiations with us?

With this statement, Likud’s political platform has become identical to those of Kadima, Labor, and even Meretz—or for that matter, the PLO.

Shas’ Ovadia Yosef also expressed his support for giving up East Jerusalem—as always, in order to save Jewish lives. The immensely learned rabbi will have to answer why it would not be better just to liquidate Israel completely and move the entire population to Australia, which is a much safer place for Jews than the Land of Israel.

Lieberman implicitly supported the giveaway of Jerusalem by attacking the government on less important issues of his party’s coalition agreement.

Since the UNSC resolution of March 1980 which condemned Israeli construction in Jerusalem, the US consistently opposes our presence in the holy city. All other countries have also withdrawn their embassies from Jerusalem. The Israeli government never tried to establish its sovereignty over Jerusalem’s Arab districts, which have fluctuated between effective autonomy and PA rule.

So it comes as no news that Israel has given up on her capital.

Seven decades ago, the world was urging Czechoslovakia to make brave decisions in order to preserve peace in Europe. The Czechs, they said, must give part of their land to Germany, never mind the historical and strategic importance of that land. Today it is Israel’s turn to placate the aggressor—and peace is similarly elusive.

For the first time, a Western government has revealed the true extent of the capitulation being demanded of Israel. Retreating to the 1948 borders would mean relinquishing all of Jerusalem, not just the Arab villages around it. And the Arab demographic explosion inside Israel has effectively changed the 1948 border into the 1947 one, within which Jews have settled three narrowly interconnected enclaves amid a sea of Arabs.

When Muslims have jurisdiction over the Temple Mount, Jews won’t be able to pray at the Western Wall below anyway, because of the hail of stones.

Jews quietly swallowed the earlier pill when the agency banned us from advertising Qumran caves; Palestinian national heritage, indeed.

The question is, why do we even need the peace talks? A far better choice would be to accelerate the construction and hang up the peace process, which would otherwise strip Israel of vitally important lands.

In fact, our goal is neither. We want our land. If it comes with peace, fine; if it requires conflict, recent history proves that the Arabs have more to fear.